2008 Interview With Bishop Richard Williamson On 9/11 Etc....
"He (Bishop Richard Williamson) has also, on many occasions, clearly explained how his views on the holohoax, NWO, 9/11, etc. are closely related to the Faith. If you have chosen not to listen, then that is your problem."
Ok, here is an interview with Bishop Williamson that took place in England on 20th January, 2008 taken from Ignis Ardens:
SSPX, The Church & The World: 2008 and Beyond
My Lord, you have presented several conferences in London dealing with themes of Literature, the relationship between nature and grace, and Catholic Culture. Would you care to elaborate why a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church speaks upon such subjects and does not limit himself to talking on more "spiritual" themes?
Grace builds on nature, and has nothing else to build on. The famous principle, in Latin, is Gratia non tollit naturam, i.e. grace does not take away, suspend or destroy nature, but heals it and perfects it, and lifts it up into the supernatural order, infinitely far above nature, but not against nature, only against sin, sin original and personal.
However, by man's wickedness, nature can be wrecked, and it can be so wrecked as to give grace a more and more difficult time. Of course, God's grace is all-powerful, but God respects the free-will He gave us to choose to go to Heaven. If we choose to block His grace, He will not force it upon us.
Massively, modern man is choosing to wreck his nature, in such a way that God Himself seems to us more and more unnatural. To a youngster stuck in Rock and computers, how do you even begin to preach the Gospel?
If grace pushes us to wish to save his soul, it is grace that may begin by attacking the jungle of natural weeds, so as to plant flowers of grace. But to clear the unhealthy vision of nature, one needs to contrast it and replace it with a healthy vision of nature, in line with, and much more apt to receive, supernatural grace.
Catholic culture, even non-Catholic culture which is not yet anti-natural but which may still be relatively natural, like, say, the music of Bach or the paintings of Rembrandt, provides this healthy vision of nature, most lacking to many people today, especially youngsters, and most useful to start them on the way back to God. Actually, both Bach and Rembrandt were beneficiaries of centuries of Catholic culture, but if one sees them as stairs coming down from the Catholic heights, nothing prevents one from using the same stairs to climb back towards those heights !
You are also well known for raising subjects that the more faint-hearted find controversial. Unanswered questions and incredible inconsistencies surrounding the official 9/11 story might serve as an example. Why is it important that a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church instructs the faithful about such matters?
In a world that refuses grace and finishes by wrecking nature, which is a just punishment from God for its apostasy, Satan, the Father of Lies, takes over. We live today in a world of lies, governed by lies.
Now, for anybody to say that lies do not matter is extremely short-sighted. Our Lord said, the truth will make us free. Does it not follow that lies will enslave us? Does slavery not matter? Also, Satan is bringing on, and working towards, the Antichrist. If agents of the Antichrist are at work, is it not a religious question?
9/11 was a gigantic fraud, a lie which changed the mentality of people all over the world, making them ready to give up a number of their freedoms, i.e. accept slavery, in exchange for security from the "terrorists". What terrorists? The terrorists of those secret agencies which, working under cover, demolished by explosives from within the Twin Towers and fired a guided missile at the Pentagon?
The perpetrators of the 9/11 inside job succeeded overnight in largely enslaving the world population's minds to their false globalist vision: "terrorism" is a global threat requiring global co-ordination and global government in the New World Order --to prepare the world for living under the Antichrist.
If Catholics will not see either that 9/11, for instance, was an inside job, or that it is a religious question, it seems to me that they have an inadequate grasp of how much their religion embraces. Bishops have no business involving themselves in politics as such, but when "politics" interfere with the salvation of souls, then "politics" are trespassing outside their proper domain, and they make themselves the business of a bishop.
The problem is that "politics" in a godless society, like ours today, are liable to become a substitute religion, an idolatry, an unnamed but real breaking of the First Commandment. People's idea of the good life is reduced to the puny goods that their "politics" can assure. This assurance is on the brink of undergoing an enormous correction !
There is a certain resistance and antagonism expressed by some Catholics within tradition towards laymen who attempt to rebuild Catholic Civilisation in the Social Order. Connected to this is an avalanche of lies and calumny being spread by a handful of malcontents who have taken it upon themselves to lead the charge. Some of this has been directed at yourself, District Superiors and other priests of FSSPX. The false accusation was even made recently that the Fraternity has an agenda to force the Dialogue Mass upon all of its churches and chapels!
Fortunately, the effect of such discord remains a minor annoyance within FSSPX circles and is limited but, without doubt, is encouraged and fomented by outside forces hostile to the Fraternity. Would you care to comment upon these matters?
Being based in Argentina, I am not up-to-date with all details of the present controversy in the USA and Europe over the re-building of a Catholic Social Order. Suffice it to say that on the one hand, such a re-building is in principle nothing other than the promotion of Archbishop Lefebvre's central doctrine against the Newchurch, namely the Social Reign of Christ the King, while on the other hand a mass of Catholic minds in the Newchurch but also in Tradition are more or less imbued, consciously or unconsciously, with liberal ideals of our time intrinsically opposed to that Social Reign of Christ.
For instance the very name of "Capitalism", taken from a well-head (caput) of money, suggests that it may be liable to put money before people. Thus it was never Capitalism as such that effectively worked against Communism, because as Amintore Fanfani shows, Capitalism as such always worked towards its own blending with Communism, as we see happening in today's Globalism.
Capitalism as such only worked against Communism insofar as it had not yet set out to crush the religious vision of God and man and life as Communism did from its start (because the Communists know that this religious vision is the only real opposition to their own diametrically opposite irreligious vision). But have not today all "Capitalist" nations ended up in the same materialistic atheism as the "Communist" nations?
FSSPX continues to maintain its mission of attempting to protect and practise the fullness of Faith. On the one hand the Fraternity, and even Archbishop Lefebvre himself, are denounced as "progressives" for using the 1962 Missal, for daring to promote Catholic social doctrine, and even for accepting the post-Conciliar Popes as Popes. At the same time there exists an expression of greater sympathy towards positions of the Fraternity from quarters not normally associated with the fullness of Catholic tradition. These things could be viewed as a continuation of a process whereby Our Lord is sorting out wheat from chaff. They could also be viewed in the sense that the Devil is working overtime in order to lay traps for the Fraternity? Perhaps a bit of both? Comments, my Lord?
Many Catholic positions are a balance of truth between an error of excess and an error of defect. The 1962 missal is not substantially defective even if it is less rich than the missals that went before it. The failings of recent popes are not - at least yet - sufficiently manifest to prove that they cannot have been popes. (The Catholic Church and God's Truth are tougher than that!) Similarly, Catholic social doctrine has not by modern man been made so difficult to put into practice as to make it untrue. Here are three errors of excess into which the Devil pushes traditionalist Catholics when he sees he can no longer push them into Liberalism. He topples them over in the opposite direction!
On the other hand the grace of God can work upon Newchurch Catholics to bring them to realize that the Tradition which they have been ordered to despise and to spurn may contain rather more Truth than they had thought. Hence a number of them are little by little coming to a truer appreciation of the "Lefebvrists".
In brief, the Lord God and His adversary Satan are all the time at work upon all souls alive; God to bring souls towards Tradition and Heaven, Satan to get or to keep them away.
With the release of Summorum Pontificum it is well known that a promising number of parish priests maintain a more openly sympathetic stance towards FSSPX. Are you at liberty to state, My Lord, whether or not the Fraternity has yet engaged in doctrinal discussions at any level? No doubt it is too soon to expect developments with Vatican authorities, who have yet to unequivocally acknowledge that the "excommunications" are invalid, but how about at Diocesan level? Has the issuing of the Motu proprio and its covering letter made any discernable difference in the attitude of individual Bishops towards FSSPX?
Between the SSPX and Rome there is talk of doctrinal discussions, but there are no such discussions yet. Actually, neo-modernists cannot want them, except as a bait to lead the Society into a trap. Society leaders want discussions to "make the light of Truth shine in Rome", as a step towards ultimately "resolving this crisis of the Church", but this crisis must not be under-estimated.
We are in the thick of a centuries-old religious war to the death between the religion of God and the secular humanist religion of man. For reconciliation to take place, either Rome quits the new religion or the SSPX quits the old - which latter alternative may God forbid!
All indications so far (mid-January, 2008) are that the Motu Proprio of July, 2007, has met with solid opposition on the part of the mass of Newchurch bishops. Where necessary, they were in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, bullied by Rome into celebrating exclusively the mess of Newmass pottage. Now Rome is casting doubt on that mess of pottage for which, under Rome's pressure, they sold their souls ? If I was a Newchurch bishop, I can imagine what I might now be thinking of Rome! Yet there are undoubtedly some bishops in the world who, thanks to the Motu Proprio, think now more sanely of the Tridentine Mass and of the SSPX, only their change of thinking is for the moment duly - or unduly! - discrete.
In regard to the Pope acknowledging the invalidity of the "excommunications" allegedly incurred in 1988. It was indicated that an official acknowledgement would be easier for His Holiness to achieve than the struggle he endured over the publication of Summorum Pontificum. Yet Fr. Kovpak of the Eastern Rite, Priestly Society of St. Josephat, recently had his "excommunication" confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Obviously the reason for that is 'politikal' rather than one of moral certitude, but how will that development likely effect what his Holiness owes in justice to the "excommunicatees"?
Within Rome today, as within the entire Newchurch, but especially within the HQ of that Newchurch, there is going on a life-and-death struggle between the new religion of man and the old - abiding - religion of God, instituted by the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross, the true Catholic religion. In this struggle the Pope necessarily plays a central part. Broadly speaking, Benedict XVI's heart is with the old religion but his head is with the new, and up till now his head rules.
So he might surely like to lift the "excommunications" of 1988, but the masonic powers-that-be within the Vatican are absolutely opposed to a gesture so restoring the credit of the old religion, and Benedict cannot stand up to these powers with his heart alone. With Fr. Kovpak's condemnation the neo-modernists have won another battle, but the war goes on!
The Motu proprio will surely achieve at least one thing of essential importance: a great many extra graces will flood the Catholic world in proportion to the Holy Sacrifice being offered in the manner that is most pleasing to the Almighty. It will undoubtedly force Hell to work that much harder as well.
Of late, you have been instructing the faithful to prepare for very difficult times ahead. Many signs exist that social disorder is becoming more unstable. Beside internal religious, cultural and economic contradictions that afflict the nations, destructive natural phenomena also appear to be on the increase. There is much talk about pursuing war in Arabia and Persia and there are indications that governments, who hold a hatred towards the Faith and the Moral Order, are preparing to unleash serious measures to stamp out public resistance to future stages of New World Order implementation.
Of course, spiritually, Catholics must attempt to live each moment as if it were the last because one day that moment will arrive, perhaps unexpectedly, for each one of us. Neither can we predict with any certainty when such things as oil-based fuels or electricity may be severely limited or foodstuffs disappear from supermarket shelves. Even with our limited predictive powers, should Catholics not prepare to become self-sufficient as soon as possible in regard to the physical necessities of life in order to provide a greater chance of surviving the difficult times? Priests, religious, young Catholic families, will be needed to restore Civilisation when hard times have passed, as surely it seems they must according to Our Lady and many of the great Saints.
Do you have any thoughts, My Lord, about how Catholics must attempt to prepare physically for times of hardship and want? Food, water, shelter, warmth, clothing; are these not essentials that prudence dictates religious establishments and families aim to provide for themselves or in common?
The world situation resulting in early 2008 from five centuries of progressive apostasy, culminating in its quasi-triumph at Vatican II over the Catholic churchmen themselves, is so precarious that it is easy to imagine a breakdown in modern civilization's means of providing for man's basic physical or material needs, e.g. food, warmth and all the necessities presently catered for by electric current. Correspondingly, it is common sense for any family father today to be thinking of how he may provide for his family in foreseeable emergencies. The GGG formula is classic - "gold, guns and groceries". But whether or not such emergency measures seem practical or prudent, let him at least firmly establish the family Rosary if it is not already established. That is the best protection of all.
An Italian social democratic newspaper, Il Riformista, carried a purported interview with Bishop Fellay last October. The "interview" was obviously a poor misrepresentation of whatever His Lordship stated but, nevertheless, an alleged direct quote had His Lordship indicating that FSSPX admits it is outside the Church which caused a bit of a flutter with some people. Could you just confirm for the public record that the Il Riformista interview severely misrepresented His Lordship?
Of this particular interview between Bishop Fellay and the newspaper Il Riformista, I have no knowledge whatsoever. However, it would not be the first time that the bishop's comments to the press have given rise to misunderstandings.
On the one hand the worldly media are always looking for signs of an end to the SSPX's unworldly resistance to the worldly New World Order of the globalists etc. On the other hand Bishop Fellay is constantly aiming to defend that resistance by presenting it in terms the most acceptable possible to worldly people, in the media or in the Newchurch. The aim, or purpose, is admirable, but the means he chooses to achieve it can give rise to misunderstandings.
Finally, My Lord, whenever a Bishop of the Fraternity makes public comment upon the Mass, Vatican II, social matters pertaining to the Faith, or upon a host of other things that relate to the mission of FSSPX, there are constant attempts from Left and Right to introduce a notion of division within the Fraternity. "Bishop X is soft and looking to do a quick deal with Rome", or "Bishop Y is opposed to Bishop Z's mad ideas"; so many whispering campaigns and idle gossip manipulated by those who are more calculated and malicious.
It should not need to be stated but could you confirm, for the benefit of any wavering sheep who pay attention to idle gossip, that the central authority, Bishops and District Superiors of FSSPX are very clear and united in their understanding of its direction and positions?
It would be inhuman if, nearly twenty years after their joint consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, the four bishops of the SSPX and all other Society Superiors still agreed on every issue. However, without any doubt at all, the bishops are still wholly devoted to continuing the Archbishop's great work as they see it, and this means that in 2008 the measure of agreement amongst them is well in excess of any measure of disagreement.
Thanks must go to God, because even this measure of agreement is more than human beings on their own, without God's help, would be capable of. Long Live Christ the King!